>I received an adequate response from Glenn to my questions. I guess I >should take the time to download the materials from your web sites, and>/or read the books. I have found that it is hard to learn anything in >detail via email.

Paul, I'll zippy over on the Maryland side and hand deliver alive and in
person.

>Moreover, not only are we in vast disagreement as to the date, now it turns
out >that we aren't sure WHAT to date. It's not tools, not bones, not clothing,
not >bipedalism. Is it something called the *image of God*? Is that equivalent to >the images of Venus? Cave art? Rock markings? Flower petals buried with
the >dead?

My date, ca. 7,000 years ago, is for the first man to have a covenant with
God, the first biblical man, the first man named in human history, the first
man created in "the image of God," the first to be accountable, the first to
sin and suffer the consequences, the first of the Adamites, Jews, Arabs and
a few others, the first in the line of promise leading to Christ. To wit:
Adam of Genesis, first mentioned in Gen. 1:27.

The dates of arrival for the first humanoid, first hominid, first of the
genus Homo, first of the archaic Homo Sapiens, first of the modern Homo
sapiens, first of the black Africans, first of the Asians, first of the
Caucasians, first to carve statues, the first to bury flowers with
the dead, is all in the competent hands of anthropologists. Whatever they
say (and can agree on) is okay by me. They're the experts, and the Bible
provides no contradictory dates.

>All this is >inconsistent with any hubris or talk of "solutions".

I can't pack in all the data in this medium. The book delivers, that's
about all I can say. There is probably much more data waiting to be
discovered, however, I have found roughly half a dozen historical
references that parallel Adam. That's about twice as many as any other
living human being has compiled, but there are likely more to be found,
now that we know where to look.